Originally posted by Marc Sabatella It's just that in order to realize this
benefit, you kind of have to let go of the "fear of missing shots"
argument.
In this case, however, aren't we are comparing photographers rather than lens'?
Originally posted by Marc Sabatella The set of primes required to replace a
given zoom or set of zooms may well be smaller & lighter than the zoom(s).
On the other hand my old ver 1 kit lens is just barely larger than my
FA35
Kit length 3 3/8 inchs wt 8 oz
FA35 2.5 inchs wt 7 oz
Granted there may be peculiar combinations of primes where a zoom would
get pretty clumsy and heavy to replace them all. There would also be
certain zoom ranges where a zoom would be very size and weight efficient
given there other advantages.
Originally posted by Marc Sabatella But in the end, it's all personal
decision,
Indeed.
I put a very high value on gear that gets out of my way and just lets me
concentrate on creating an image. I just hate gear that breaks my train
of thought and intrudes on the process of trying to create the image
that I think I see with my minds eye in the viewfinder.
I recently went out in the woods to get some spring shots. I brought
along the Sigma 105 macro and the FA35. I found a lovely potential shot
of a moss covered log covered with fungus and mushrooms. Deep saturated
colors with a soft mystical lighting that was perfect. I looked through
the 105mm and the lighting was perfect. I took a shot but decided I
needed more FOV so I changed to the 35mm. But by this time, no more
than two minutes, the light had changed slightly and the magic was gone. I had
lost the image.
I could have backed up with the 105 but I was completely tangled in
brush and using a tripod. Also I think the change in perspective might
have lost what I was looking for anyway.
Well you get the idea.
Anyway thanks for your thoughtful comments they were well taken.